Casual Labour: RBE No.167/1986 – Terms of Employment of
No.E(NG)II/84/CL/41, dated 11.09.1986
Sub: Project casual labour – terms of employment of.
1. Reference Ministry of Railways now Department of Railways letters of even number dated 01.06.1984 and 25.06.1984 on the above subject.
2. The scheme outlined in para 5.1 of the Ministry of Railways letter of even number dated 01.06.1984 read with the letter dated 25.06.1984 for treating project casual labour as temporary, was placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petitions No.147, 320-69, 454, 4335-4434/83 etc. Inder Pal Yadav & ors. etc. v. Union of India & ors. etc. The Supreme Court has approved the scheme subject to modifications indicated in the judgment dated 18.04.1985, a copy of which is enclosed.
3. Keeping in view the direction given by the Supreme Court in the said judgment and in their orders dated 11.08.1986 (copy enclosed) para 5.1 of the aforesaid letter of 01.06.1984 should be substituted by the following, the other provisions of the same remaining unaltered:
“5.1 As a result of such deliberations, the Ministry of Railways have now decided in principle that casual labour employed on projects (also known as “Project casual labour”) may be treated as temporary (temporary status) on completion of 360 days of continuous employment.
The Ministry have decided further as under:
(a) These orders will cover:
(i) Casual labour on projects who were in service as on 01.01.1981; and
(ii) Casual labour on projects, who though not in service on 01.01.1981, had been in service on Railways earlier and had already completed the above prescribed period (360 days) of continuous employment or have since completed or will complete the said prescribed period of continuous employment on re-engagement after 01.01.1981.
(b) The decision should be implemented in a phased manner according to the schedule given below:
| Length of service (i.e. continuous employment) | Date from which may be treated as temporary (temporary status) | |
| (i) | Those who have completed five years of service as on 01.01.1981 | 01.01.1981 |
| (ii) | Those who have completed three years but less than five years of service as on 01.01.1981 | 01.01.1982 |
| (iii) | Those who have completed 360 days but less than three years of service as on 01.01.1981 | 01.01.1983 |
| (iv) | Those who complete 360 days after 01.01.1981 | 01.01.1984 or the date on which 360 days are completed whichever is later |
4. Accordingly, in paras 1 and 2 of the Ministry of Railways letter dated 25.06.1984, the date “01.01.1984” may be read as “01.01.1981”. The dates occurring in hypothetical illustrations given in para 3 thereof would stand modified correspondingly.
5.1 As directed by the Supreme Court for implementation of the above scheme, each zonal railway should prepare a list of project casual labour with reference to each Division of each Railway on the basis of length of service. The men with longest service shall have priority over those who have joined latter on. In other words, the principle of last come first go (or to reverse it, first come last go) as enunciated in Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should be followed.
5.2 The following instructions are given in this regard for guidance of the Zonal Railways.
5.2.1 On each Zonal Railway, the list of project casual labour will be prepared for each Division, as under:-
(i) Project casual labour employed on works of each of the Departments Civil Engineering, Signal & Telecommunication, Electrical, etc within the geographical boundaries of a Division (irrespective of whether the works are executed by a Division or by the Construction Organization or by the Chief Project Manager/Railway Electrification reporting to the General Manager of a zonal railway) will form one unit (separately for each department) for which one seniority list will be prepared for each department. In this manner, for each of the Departments on each Division, there will be none separate list of project casual labour employed on works executed within that Division.
(ii) Within each Department, the seniority list will be prepared according to categories, as under:
(a) All unskilled casual labour will be treated as one category.
(b) Semi-skilled casual labour will be treated trade-wise.
(c) Skilled casual labour will be treated trade-wise.
(iii) In cases where the execution of a project spreads over more than one Division, the guiding principle will be that all the project casual labour will be assigned to the Division in which the station where they were initially engaged is located. This will be covered by the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the implementation of its direction involves some adjustment, the same must be done.
5.2.2. It is hereeby clarified that extra-zonal Railway organisations like Metro Railway would continue to maintain the seniority lists of project casual labour as before, without taking a Division of a zonal railway as a reference point. In doing so they should comply with, among other things, the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the rules made thereunder.
5.2.3 The seniority list of project casual labour engaged by project organisations will be recast by the Zonal/ Construction Railway Administrations in the aforesaid manner as on the 1st April, 1985 to cover all project casual labour who have been in employment at any time from 01.01.1981, onwards. The lists so prepared will be used for any subsequent engagement/ re-engagement/ discharge of project casual labour. Any such discharge, where so warranted, due to reduction or completion of work or for other administrative reasons will be effected after complying with the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and the orders applicable to project casual labour.
6. Steps may be taken immediately for implementation of the orders contained in the Deptt. of Railways’s letters of 01.06.1984 and 25.06.1984 aforesaid as modified above on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Due verification of claims in each individual case will, no doubt, be done by the respective Railway Administrations.
7.1 The process of preparation of seniority list and action as directed above, must be completed within two months from 11th August, 1986, as per orders dated 11.08.1986 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. To ensure full implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court, a committee comprising a DPO, a DEN, a DEN (Const.) on each Division will meet and review the implementation every week. Similar Committee should function for each of the other Departments engaging project casual labour. Similarly in the Headquarters of each Zonal Railway, a committee comprising the CPO, the CE (Cost), CSTE and CEE should review the implementation of these orders each fortnight till the court’s decision is implemented. The Personnel Officer on these committees will act as the coordinating officer of the respective committees for the purpose of monitoring the progress of implementation. A detailed report in this regard should be sent to the Board in phases, the first by 30th September, 1986 and the second by 15th October, 1986.
7.2 The Department of Railways also desire that in every Department engaging project casual labour in each Division of each Railway, an officer, not lower in rank than Senior Scale, must be nominated who will be responsible for maintaining the combined seniority list of project casual labour of his Department and for co-coordinating with other officers of that department so as to ensure proper operation of the list in the manner detailed in para 5.2.3 supra in terms of these orders. This list must be reviewed by the said officer at least once a year before 30th September of every year. The officer so nominated should be one suitable to handle a task of this type.
8. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Department of Railways.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petitions Nos.147, 320-69, 454, 4335-4434/83, etc. etc.
CORAM
The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice of India
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranganath Misra
lnder Pal Yadav & ors. etc. ……………………………………………………….Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & ors. etc. ……………………………………………………………..Respondents
Advocates.
| For the Petitioners | Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, C.P. Pandy, Mr. M.P. Jha, Mr. L.N. Sinha, Advocates |
| For the Respondents | Mr. T.S.K. Iyer, Sr. Ms. H. Khatun, C.V.S. Rao, Mr. V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Bhandari, Advocate |
Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following:
ORDER
We are of the view that the Scheme prepared by the Railways setting out the list of project casual labour with reference to each department in each Division and also in regard to each category, namely, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, is in compliance with the judgment and order dated 18.04.1985 given by this Court and that absorption of these with the longest service be made in accordance with such list. Mr. Krishnamurti Iyer states that this process will be completed within two months from today. The matter is disposed of in these terms.
JUDGMENT
Desai, J. Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution notwithstanding, there are certain grey areas where the rule of hire and fire, a legacy of Laissezfaire, even in Government employment still rules the roost. Casual labour employed on projects also known as ‘Project casual labour’ is one such segment of employment where one may serve for years and remain a daily rated worker without a weekly off, without any security of service, without the protection of equal pay for equal work. In short at the sweet will and mercy of the local starpps. Even the formidable railwaymen’s unions least cared for these helpless and hapless workmen. Suddenly a torrent of writ petition and petitions for special leave awakened this Court to the plight of these workmen. In quick succession, 48 writ petitions and 32 petitions for special leave flooded this Court. In each writ petition/ SLP, the grievance was that even though the workmen styled as ‘project casual labour’ had put in continuous service for years on end to writ ranging from 1974 till 1983, yet their services were terminated with impunity under the specious plea that the project on which they were employed has been wound up on its completion and their services were no more needed. No one is unaware of the fact that Railway Ministry has a perspective plan spreading over years, decades and projects are waiting in queue for execution and yet these worksmen were shunted out (to use a cliché from the Railway vocabulary) without any chance of being re-employed. Some of them rushed to the court and obtained interim relief. Some were not so fortunate. At one stage some of these petitions were set down for final hearing and the judgment was reserved. When some other similar matters came up, Mr. K.G. Bhagat, the then learned Additional Solicitor General, requested the court not to render the judgment because he would take up the matter with the Railway Ministry to find a just and humane solution affecting the livelihood of these unfortunate workmen. As the future of lakhs of workmen going under the label of casual project labour was likely to be affected, we repeatedly adjourned these matters to enable the Railway Ministry to work out a scientific scheme.
Railway Ministry framed a Scheme and circulated the same amongst others to all the General Managers of Indian Railways including production units as per its circular No.E(NG)II/84/CL/41, dt. June 1, 1984. In the Scheme it was stated that all the General Managers were directed to implement the decision of the Railway Ministry by the target dates. It was further stated that a detailed letter regarding group 5.1 (ii) would follow. Such a letter was issued on June 25, 1984. Thereafter, these matters were set out for examining the fairness and justness of the Scheme and whether the court would be in a position to dispose of these petitions in view of the Scheme. That is how these matters came up before us.
The relevant portions of the Scheme read as under:
“5.1 As a result of such deliberations, the Ministry of Railways have now decided in principle that casual labour employed on projects (also known as ‘project casual labour’) may be treated as temporary on completion of 360 days of continuous employment. The Ministry have decided further as under:
(a) These orders will cover:
(i) Casual labour on projects who are in service as on 01.01.1984; and
(ii) Casual labour on projects who though not in service on 01.01.1984, had been in service on Railways earlier and had already completed the above prescribed period (360) days of continuous employment or will complete the said prescribed period of continuous employment on re-engagement in future. (A detailed letter regarding this group follows).
(b) The decision should be implemented in phases according to the schedule given below:
| Length of Service (i.e. continuous employment) | Date from which may be treated as temporary | Date by which decision should be implemented | |
| (i) | These who have completed five years of service as on 01.01.1984 | 01.01.1984 | 31.12.1984 |
| (ii) | Those who have completed three years but less than five years of service as on 01.01.1984 | 01.01.1985 | 31.12.1985 |
| (iii) | Those who have completed 360 days but less than three years of service on 01.01.1984 | 01.01.1986 | 31.12.1986 |
| (iv) | Those who completed 360 days after 01.01.1984 | 01.01.1987 or the date which 360 days are completed whichever is later | 31.03.1987 |
5.2. The Ministry would like to clarify there that casual labour on projects who have completed 180 days of continuous employment would continue to be entitled to the benefits now admissible to them (so long as they fulfill the conditions in this regard) till they become due for the benefits mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph.
By and large the scheme certainly is an improvement on the present situation though not wholly satisfactory. However the Railway being the biggest employer and having regard to the nature of its work, it would have to engage casual labour and, therefore, as a preliminary step towards realization of the ideal enshrined in Articles 41 and 42, we propose to put our stamp of approval on the scheme with one major variation which we proceed to herein set out.
The scheme envisages that it would be applicable to casual labour on projects who were in service as on January 01, 1984. The choice of this date does not command to us, for it is likely to introduce an invidious distinction between similarly situated persons and expose some workmen to arbitrary discrimination flowing from fortuitous court’s order. To illustrate, in some matters, the court granted interim stay before the workmen could be retrenched while some other were not so fortunate. Those in respect of whom the court granted interim relief by stay/ suspension of the order of retrenchment, they would be treated in service on 01.01.1984 while others who fail to obtain interim relief though similarly situated would be pushed down in the implementation of the Scheme. There is another area where discrimination is likely to rear its ugly head. These workmen come from the lowest grade of railway service. They can ill afford to rush to court. Their hardly been of any assistance. They had individually to collect money and rush to court which in case of some may be beyond their reach. Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock at the doors of the court of justice because these doors do not open unless huge expresses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for a litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Honson’s choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court. Burdened by all these relevant considerations and keeping in view all the aspects of the matter, we would modify part 5.1 (a) (i) by modifying the date from 01.01.1984 to 01.01.1981 with this modification and consequent rescheduling in absorption from that date, onward, the Scheme framed by Railway Ministry is accepted and a direction is given that it must be implemented by re-casting the stages consistent with the change in the date as herein directed.
To avoid violation of Art. 14, the scientific and equitable way if implementing the scheme is for the Railway administration to prepare, a list of project casual labour with reference to each division of each railway and then start absorbing these with the longest service. If in the process any adjustments are necessary, the same must be done. In giving this direction, we are considerably influenced by the statutory recognition of a principle well known in industrial jurisprudence that the men with longest service shall have priority over these who have joined later on. In other words, the principle of last come first go or to reverse it first come last go as enunciated in Sec. 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been accepted. We direct accordingly.
All these writ petitions and special leave petitions shall stand disposed of consistent with the scheme as modified by this judgment and the directions herein given.
The scheme as would stand modified by the directions herein given forms part of this judgment and a copy of it shall be annexed to this judgment.
Learned counsel Shri Anis Suhrawardy has put in the maximum labour in making a very useful compilation. He must have spent days and months. The compilation helped us the most in dealing with the writ petitions and the special leave petitions and in ascertaining the proper principle. Such a compilation ought to have been prepared by the Railway Administration. Therefore, we direct the Union of India to pay Rs.5000 as and by way of costs to Shri Anis Suhrawardy, Advocate, Supreme Court.
Download Railway Board Circular RBE No.167/1986
Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.39/1987, RBE No.43/1987